People v. Bynum
496 Mich. 610
| Mich. | 2014Background
- On Aug. 28, 2010, Levon Bynum was among a group on disputed gang turf when a confrontation led to gunfire; one victim died and two others were wounded. Surveillance and witness evidence tied Bynum and others to the shooting; Bynum claimed self‑defense.
- Police identified Bynum as a member of the Boardman Boys gang; the prosecution called Officer Tyler Sutherland as a gang expert and used a PowerPoint to explain gang culture, symbols, and turf dynamics.
- Sutherland testified about general gang practices (turf protection, symbolism, membership tiers) but also opined that Bynum and others were “posted up ... with a purpose” and went to the store expecting a chance to shoot—linking gang membership to the specific shooting.
- Trial court admitted the expert testimony; jury convicted Bynum of first‑degree murder and related counts. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding Sutherland’s testimony amounted to improper propensity evidence and was prejudicial.
- The Michigan Supreme Court held that gang‑expert testimony is admissible to explain gang‑related facts when supported by foundation, but experts may not testify that a defendant acted on a particular occasion in conformity with gang character (MRE 404(a)). Because Sutherland crossed that line, the Court affirmed the Court of Appeals and remanded for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Bynum) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether gang‑expert testimony about gangs/membership/culture is admissible | Expert testimony assists jurors to understand symbols, turf, motive; relevant under MRE 402/702 when fact evidence shows crime is gang‑related | Testimony is more prejudicial than probative and risks impermissible character/propensity inference | Admissible when connected to fact evidence showing crime is gang‑related and when it will assist the jury (MRE 402, 702) |
| Whether an expert may opine that a defendant acted on a particular occasion in conformity with gang traits (propensity) | Such opinion helps explain motive/premeditation | Opinion constitutes forbidden character evidence under MRE 404(a) and improperly proves action by conformity | Prohibited: MRE 404(a) bars testimony that a defendant committed the charged act because of gang membership (no proving action by conformity) |
| Whether the trial court properly exercised gatekeeper role (relevance, reliability, and prejudice balancing under MRE 702/403) | Trial court appropriately limited testimony and allowed only helpful gang‑culture evidence | Admission was overbroad and unduly prejudicial; trial counsel failed to timely object to specifics | Trial court must act as gatekeeper; evidence remains subject to MRE 403; here court erred in admitting expert propensity opinion |
| Harmlessness and remedy: if error, should conviction be reduced to second‑degree or retrial ordered? | If only premeditation was affected, reduce to second‑degree murder rather than order retrial | Expert testimony also tainted the jury’s evaluation of self‑defense; error was not harmless | Error was prejudicial to both premeditation and self‑defense findings; new trial required (remand) |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (establishes gatekeeper role for admissibility of expert testimony)
- People v. Cannes, 460 Mich. 750 (discusses trial court responsibility to weigh prejudice under MRE 403)
- People v. McDaniel, 469 Mich. 409 (standard of review for admissibility decisions)
- People v. Murray, 234 Mich. App. 46 (addresses risks of police expert testimony creating an aura of trustworthiness and propensity concerns)
- Gilbert v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 470 Mich. 749 (on expert‑testimony reliability and Daubert framework)
- People v. Carines, 460 Mich. 750 (plain‑error and reversal standard for unpreserved issues)